Date: 10 Nov 2000 
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul DeCillis Wrote:
 Hey guys [to Bill Hunt and Mike Kelley].
 I know how busy you both are but I just had to throw this one at you. Tonight I  
 was at the De Anza library helping a student with her Research Paper, her  
 husband (too young for the Vietnam War) and their (two or three year old)  
 daughter were there also. After about an hour of discussing the war the 
 husband asks me: "What do we tell our children about what to do as to not go  
 through another war the way we did in Viet Nam?" I know there is a book with 
 that title but I would like your personal input to relate to them. Any comments??
 --Paul
----------------------------------------------------------------
 To the parents of the most beautiful child in the world:

 I could be short and sweet by summarizing the mistakes that America made  
 both before and during the war. But in doing so, I would just be applying 20/20
 hindsight. I personally do not believed that knowing all of that will help anyone  
 avoid similar wars in the future. I wish that it would. I wish that life were that  
 simple. Vietnam was Vietnam. No two wars will ever be alike.

 That has not kept political pundits from invoking the name of Vietnam each time  
 some military adventure is contemplated. Do you have the drill memorized? We  
 must, forevermore, proceed with a clear mission, get plenty of advanced
 support of all of the American people, and be sure to apply all the resources  
 necessary to achieve our goals in a timely fashion.

 And that rhetoric is always logically laid out, by people who think they 
 understand how to plan military adventures, both large and small.

 So you can tell your children that stuff if you choose. Other fathers and mothers 
 will.

 Understand, however, that once military action is committed, no one can predict 
 with certainty how it will all turn out. War is a chess game were some of the  
 pieces explode without warning and things go wrong.

 To me the interesting question is not about avoiding future Vietnams. To me,
 the nut of the problem is what to say to a child who may someday face war on
 a personal level. That adds real spice, doesn't it?

 My Mom and Dad died when I was in my twenties. Dad died just before I 
 joined the Army. They were older than most parents, and they were made 
 wise by  experience.

 My Dad said to me several times that "war is hell, son." I knew he was being
 serious, but I also knew he was not trying to steer me away. After all, he
 did WWI, and then returned to do WWII. How bad could it have been, my 
 young brain reasoned. I am certain he would have been proud of my military  
 service. Had he been alive during my tour in Vietnam he would have worried  
 daily, but he would have kept to himself.

 His Father had served in the Spanish-American War. It was never said, but I 
 am sure his Dad was proud of my Father's service in WWI, and visa versa. In  
 my family I can trace father and son relationships and possible conversations  
 about war all the way back to the Revolution.

 So, there has been a real tradition in my family of service during times of war,  
 and a serious carrying forward of an fundamental unspoken assumption. The  
 assumption that I was raised with is that war is inevitable. Most people 
 probably believe that, some more than others.

 I think that throughout the entire history of mankind, war has indeed been
 natural. People fight over stuff, they always have. Cultures have been isolated 
 by geography and armed to the teeth. Communication, when possible, has  
 always be complicated by distance and language and built-in misunderstandings. 
 Economic systems have been limited to the borders of separate countries and  
 their immediate trading partners. And the most common form of government
 on earth, historically, has been the warlord, disguised as King (by any name,  
 including dictator in all the unsubtle forms).

 Is war still inevitable? Your answer to that will drive what you say to your
 children about Vietnam or any war.

 So, what do you think? Even if you believe that war is inevitable, is it possible to 
 avoid war for, say, 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? 1000 years? Should we 
 take a vote?

 I have been intrigued for years by the possibility of never having to send a child  
 off to war, ever. It almost sounds impossible. But I think about such things, and  
 I have written about such things before. So, I am prepared to share my opinion.

 But beware: I normally hesitate to share just flat out opinions with EWRT2.
 The whole point of critical thinking is to look beyond mere opinions, and dig
 deep for the facts. Critical thinking is thinking things all the way through.

 So read this, but do not park your brains. Take what I offer, and make it
 something better.

 This will take a while, so print this out. Go get a bowl of ice cream. You have  
 some reading and thinking to do, and you will need some brain food. :-)

 As I speculate about how we should behave as a nation, well into the future,
 I am reminded of great things said in the past. Leonardo DaVinci wrote in the
 back of his very last journal, "Tell me if anything was ever done." A spooky
 comment from a man who invented things like he had a time machine. Too bad
 he did not invent peace.

 My Mom was the smartest woman I have ever known. But she was not always
 right. When I screwed up royally, first she would get frustrated and then she   
 would just get philosophical. "Billy," she would say, "in a hundred years no one   
 will care."

 That always let me off the hook. But she was wrong. What we do today is the
 direct result of things that were started hundreds of years ago. And people a  
 hundred years from now will be pleased if we start to get things right as soon 
 as possible.

 I have always been impressed by the completely sincere quip made by comic
 philosopher Will Rogers. He said, "I've never met a man I didn't like." That sticks 
 to my soul, like pudding to a spoon. I'm not sure I can agree with Will, but 
 there is a whole point of view in those few words. In most of the world the 
 presumption of evil intent dominates human thinking. Is that justified by  
 experience? For some, perhaps. But, I've found it much easier to validate the 
 old maxim that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 Is it possible to render war obsolete? Smarter men than I will have to make 
 that judgment, but here is my sketch-pad. Maybe someday one of my 
 great-greatgrandkids will spiritually reach out through the spiritual ethos and  
 "tell me if anything was ever done."

 Let's talk about possibilities.

 Most wars, the ones we might be able to prevent, if we have the will, are not
 really about conquest or anything so large. Most wars are about revolt, or
 disputes over territory, or false pride, or religious/cultural hatred. History is  
 replete with examples of oppressed people winning revolutions only to become  
 the new oppressors. Our American Revolution is one of the few exceptions.  
 When the smoke cleared, we somehow formulated something new on  earth: 
 a remarkable set of principles concerning the fundamentals of human dignity 
 and the self-evidence of truth. Around those principles we were able to shape a  
 system with, among other things, plurality, local elections, freedom of  
 expression, and an independent judiciary. In short, we defined and created the  
 essential elements of self-determination.

 We even added enough checks and balances to keep it all working, despite the
 many diverse "good intentions" of a melting pot nation comprised today of 
 every culture on earth.

 As we turn the corner and head into the very beginnings of the 21st Century,
 America is the only "super power", and we are wondering whether that means
 the same thing as "world policeman". How we answer that wonderment is 
 risky. There are nuclear warheads, by the thousands, still dotting the planet, 
 making the notion of global power somewhat presumptuous. I am wondering if I 
 will ever have grandkids, and if I do, how long they will be around. That is the 
 kind of uncertainty we face.

 Throughout the 20th Century, America slowly solidified its internal values. It has  
 been hard, but by the end of the 20th Century we started to deliver on the "all  
 men are created equal" promise made by our forefathers. In this country, if you  
 are arrested, you are still presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is not so 
 in very many other countries, and it is an amazing achievement. But while we  
 were busy bringing some measure of dignity to our own citizens, we spent the  
 second half of the century compromising those same values in most  
 relationships extended beyond our shores.

 In World War II, all Americans pulled together and defeated fascism, in several  
 forms, on multiple fronts. It was an amazing victory, and the product of our  
 unwavering ideals taken to the mat. But that ugly side of human possibility was  
 replaced by the possibility of global communism, trumpeted by despots with  
 nuclear weapons. If you want an example of revolutions producing new  
 oppressors, the Russians and Chinese fill the bill perfectly. Even before WWII, 
 communism was proving to be a wolf in sheep's clothing. It had to be stopped, 
 and that was not going to be easy. As a philosophy, communism had great 
 appeal to poor people, who without land or assets, are still, today, struggling 
 out of old feudal economies.

 At the end of WWII, old fashion dictators were the norm in third world countries, 
 and we allied ourselves with them as a global defense against the spread of  
 communism. That was a moral compromise, and it still effects our behavior and  
 our disturbed sense of national purpose.

 As a result of this contract with the devil, we started to fight, not for people, but  
 for the status quo. America's goal became "containment", and we dug in, first in  
 Korea, and later in Vietnam. Our alliance with dictators took on comic-book 
 proportions in Central and South America. Our failure to march into Baghdad at  
 the end of the Gulf War was part and parcel with the misguided idea that calls 
 restoration of the status quo a clear victory. It never is.

 Well, eventually we beat communism -- at least the Soviet variety -- largely
 by out-spending it. As I write, other communist countries are now reformed
 capitalists, but with autocrats and one-party rule firmly holding on to power
 and making real change very difficult.

 America, in the face of all this, is still searching for a comprehensive foreign  
 policy that puts our values first, before we gag on our "good intentions."

 Somewhere in our evolving foreign policy we are close to admitting that, beyond 
 just securing our borders and our "national interests," we would like to help 
 stabilize the world and make peace a permanent feature on earth.

 Just saying that out loud seems radical and I have never been much of a radical. 
 But it does seem within the realm of reason. Global communications are  
 shrinking distances between world populations, and international business is 
 rapidly creating a single world economy. If we can lick the worst of poverty and  
 illiteracy, and send a few dictators packing, then hey, maybe.

 If we are true to our national values, we will help bring forward a lasting peace 
 without becoming the new Roman Empire. They had peace for 200 years, but  
 only by posting Centurions in every town on earth that was known by the  
 Romans to be worth having in their stable of influence.

 Is that where America is headed? Don't be too quick to say "no way." I am not 
 sure.

 As I see it, we need to line up our external policies and values with our internal  
 policies and values. If I were in charge for even a few moments, I would issue 
 a notice to the world that from this day forward America will not wavier from  
 the principles of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." 
 To our various dictator friends around the globe, I would tie foreign aid to 
 10-year plans for gradual asset reform.

 I would launch a campaign for global democracy and hype our own Bill of 
 Rights. I would recognize no dictator who fails to recognize the rights of his  
 people to determine their own destiny. But, I would not destabilize cultures that 
 seem satisfied with life as directed by their leaders.

 And boy, would that cause a lot of conflict. It might even cause a war or two.

 But, I am not in charge, and not likely to be put in charge of anything so grand  
 and noble as American foreign policy (as if we actually had one).

 And no politician is likely to champion this kind of departure from conventional  
 thinking until a significant percentage of his/her constituency has already made  
 up their minds. That's how politicians remain politicians. People are much more  
 in charge in this country than most of us realize. We get to choose. It remains 
 only to be done.

 Then again, here's a thought: 'America The Beautiful' might be a short-term
 experiment. We have not been around long enough to know for sure. I will
 concede that I might be wrong about the ability of people to govern themselves  
 for the next hundred years. It is possible that the best path to peace might be  
 the example set by the Roman Empire. In the long view of history it is probably  
 easier to "win" freedom and later "defend" freedom than it is to "keep" freedom 
 from doing us all in.

 OK, OK, I do not really believe that. But understand that when government is
 ultimately "by" the people the quality of freedom is a direct product of the
 quality of individual citizen involvement in every policy issue. Are we up to it?

 We tend to think that the secret to success in America is strong leadership, as if  
 our personal role ends at the ballot box. I believe the secret has always been  
 strong, clear-thinking people, quick to take personal initiative when something  
 needs to be done, and quick to speak candidly in the face of complacency. The  
 few things in this country that are worth bragging about are the direct product 
 of America's pugnacious people. You can take that to the bank.

 In a free country it is legitimate to ask, over and over again, are we getting too 
 fat, too easily pleased, too satisfied with mediocrity? Is that curious blend of 
 independence and personal effort demanded by freedom just too much for too  
 many?

 It has never been a question of having faith in our government. We are the
 government, and to think otherwise in an abdication of power. Have you ever
 thought about that? Government policy is our problem to create, yours and 
 mine. If this is the "home of the brave," and I have to believe it will always be,   
 people from every nook and cranny of society need to ante up and join the  
 game. The stakes have always been incredibly high.

 Which also means, by the way, that better avenues for personal involvement
 need to be found. Letters to congressmen are OK, but email has flooded that
 market and caused much of those old letters to be ignored. Letters to editors 
 are still OK, but we could sure use a new 'Town Meeting' form of input, that 
 uses the internet, electronic polling, and interactive TV. I think all of that is 
 coming, and I am excited by the possibility.

 I would like to see a few changes to our "Republic" that would allow more
 personal input. Our nation is well educated (compared to previous centuries)
 and these days we shouldn't have to rely on elected officials to make every
 decision for us. I am no longer sure our elected officials even want to make
 all the decisions anymore. I offer as evidence all of the "initiatives" we now vote  
 on every election day. That's just legislators passing the buck to the streets.

 We now struggle with the use of the military for "peace keeping" missions, and 
 in small engagements, with unclear, poorly defined purposes. As a citizen, I  
 would like to offer a few principles to guide the use of force. Here are a few 
 rules for the road.

 Road Rule One: Be wary, and be prepared. If we take care of business, keep
 the military well equipped, well trained and ready to go, we will be free to use 
 some of the other rules of the road that may help prevent war. A strong military 
 is a clear deterrent to war. If we forget the first rule, the other rules are for 
 naught. For the moment that's not too much of a problem. But we are slipping. 
 We are still so close to WWII that we can smell fascism a mile away but people  
 forget. Your children will forget. Any country willing to be conquered will 
 eventually find a willing conqueror.

 Road Rule Two: Don't forget that soldiers are not factory workers or part of
 some machine. Political leaders without direct war experience too often think of  
 soldiers that way...like a tool. Please don't make that mistake. They need to
 bear arms with honor. And I don't use that word lightly. Honor is a form of love, 
 and as such, cannot be adequately defined. But any soldier who has had to 
 make a sudden personal decision, regardless of "orders" or "duty", some deadly 
 commitment to some grim action on the battlefield knows exactly what I am  
 talking about. If one must bear arms, one must have a reason to both live and  
 die. One must have the gut truth that keeps us going when we want to quit. It
 is what keeps every mom and dad going.

 Road Rule Three:. As a war vet, I can not ask a young soldier to go into combat  
 unless the mission is something I personally feel equals the value of my own
 life. Such a notion should be part of the oath of office for President and 
 Congress. Only depots and dictators and fascists and wolves in sheep clothing 
 have treated humans as mere canon fodder for political gain.

 Road Rule Four: All wars are about death and destruction. National policy should 
 be very real about that. Mankind has often gone to war on the heels of some  
 previous mythology. When it is over, people spend way too much time creating  
 new myths to explain the most recent folly. Americans have had it pretty soft
 for a long time now, and if we want to avoid being the new global police force, 
 it is time for America to wake up and get real.

 Road Rule Five: Hard times create a political environment where despots, 
 tyrants and crackpots are popular. We have known that for a long time, but we
 typically wait too long before getting involved. Somebody do the math. Could 
 we have purchased Vietnam for the cost of the war, with enough money left  
 over to make every citizen there rich beyond their wildest dreams? I am not  
 suggesting we buy our way out of war. Vietnam was not for sale. But 
 understand that most wars have been driven by economic problems and 
 sustained by economic engines. Frankly, I hope we all survive our love affair 
 with oil. Certainly within the next one hundred years there will no longer be any 
 fossil fuel available for such trivial pursuits as transportation.
 
 Meanwhile, I will work, doing what I can, to push for global resource sharing.  
 And no, I am not sure what I am promoting here. But the world has plenty of  
 alternatives and plenty of resources to go around, and America has the  
 resources to be free of the kind of economic blackmail that is clearly evident  
 today. As we move into the next few years, it will be important that American  
 policy shift and start to require energy independence. We need to help our  
 friends and even our potential enemies move in the same direction. We have  
 needed it for many years. Japan was largely driven by a need for oil before  
 WWII. They are still in oil trouble today. I am not going to die for petroleum, 
 and my grandchildren had better not perished for such a stupid reason.

 Road Rule Six: Our foreign policy must be tolerant of, and extremely  
 knowledgeable about, differences in cultures. That can only happen if Americans 
 become better trained in these areas. One of the first things I was told when I  
 was given an "orientation" in Vietnam is that the Vietnamese are "just like you."  
 I then learned that villagers were like me at some core place, but that they were 
 fundamentally different in the areas of decision making and community 
 relationships. As a culture, I found that they tended to think in local political 
 terms, and had little in common with a roughed American individualist brought 
 up on John Wayne movies. In the future, Americans need to realize, perhaps  
 through mandatory school curriculum, that just because we steadfastly believe 
 in self-determination does not mean that other people universally believe in this  
 set of values.

 Road Rule Seven: We need to state our military policy clearly, so all can
 understand under what circumstances America will react with arms. One of the
 things I learned in Vietnam, for example, is that we should not, generally, get  
 involved in another country's civil war. But once committed to action, as an 
 American citizen, I feel pretty helpless in the face of foreign policy that I know is 
 short sighted or patently wrong. I wish, as a citizen, I had more influence. I  
 would like to ratify a treaty or two, every election day. I think every American  
 needs that kind of personal commitment. I would like to be able to turn to my  
 constitution for basic wisdom on the principles of conduct with foreign nations.
 I should expect my constitution to define conditions of war, police actions, and  
 state clearly when certain actions need to be automatic, if ever. Is a blockage,  
 for example, an act of war? As it stands, we know that the President can not  
 technically declare war without the consent of Congress, but we know he will  
 take us to war nevertheless. And we know from history that Congress will not  
 declare war until its too late, if then. Consider this crazy thought: maybe 
 foreign policy is too important for politicians. What we want to avoid, what we  
 must avoid in a nuclear world, is the exercise of brinksmanship. I want our best  
 thinkers to tool up a few questions for public consideration. I want a "great
 debate", that would end with a set of amendments to the constitution. During
 the course of that, I will lobby for my principles of engagement. Let others
 lobby for theirs. Anyone who has ever been to war would have suggestions.
 I am guessing that we could create a set of amendments governing foreign
 relations and war powers that would restore America's honor and integrity in
 the world, if we really tried. Our principles would have to define "enemy"
 in the context of our own Bill of Rights. I'm talking radical stuff here. The stuff  
 worth believing in.

 Well, OK. That is plenty enough for now. I will print this out, and put a copy in  
 the shoebox for my great-grandchildren to read someday, so they can tell me if  
 anything was ever done. If you or any of the EWRT2 crew have some 
 counterpoint, I will put that in the shoebox too.

 I wish you all the best. Take care.